“State Farm is the poster child for what is wrong with the system, and the commissioner has given them too much latitude,” said Winslow of Texas Watch.
April 14, 2010 | Dallas Morning News
AUSTIN – To leading lawmakers and even some insurance industry experts, State Farm hasn’t exactly been like a good neighbor in recent dealings with state regulators.
The state’s largest property insurer shows no sign of compromising on its marathon legal battle over the state’s ruling that it overcharged homeowners hundreds of millions of dollars.
“I don’t think any insurance company should be allowed to get to the point where they are too big and powerful to be regulated,” said Alex Winslow of Texas Watch, a consumer group active in insurance issues. He accused State Farm of “taking advantage of the marketplace.”
Public Insurance Counsel Deeia Beck noted that the company has used similar tactics in Louisiana and in Florida, where State Farm declared last year that it was going to pull out of the state. It reversed course only after state regulators agreed to let the company raise homeowner rates nearly 15 percent and drop about 125,000 policies.
The state’s public insurance counsel said last year that the company owed nearly $1 billion in overcharges and penalty interest. Geeslin offered to settle the case for $310 million in refunds, but State Farm held firm that it owed nothing. The case is back in court again.
New Action Committee – ACHEMMIC- Urges Transparency in EPA Policy Over Mold & Microbial Contaminants
Sociological Issues Relating to Mold: The Mold Wars
“Changes in construction methods have caused US buildings to become perfect petri dishes for mold and bacteria to flourish when water is added. Instead of warning the public and teaching physicians that the buildings were causing illness; in 2003 the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, a think-tank, and a workers comp physician trade organization mass marketed an unscientific nonsequitor to the courts to disclaim the adverse health effects to stave off liability for financial stakeholders of moldy buildings. Although publicly exposed many times over the years, the deceit lingers in US courts to this very day.” Sharon Noonan Kramer
Information on Riverstone Residential, the Louisiana Housing Finance Agency, and the owners of Toxic Mold Infested Jefferson Lakes Apartments in Baton Rouge, Louisiana continuing to allow tenants to be exposed to extreme amounts of mold toxins
Toxic Mold Infested Jefferson Lakes Apartments managed by Riverstone Residential
Katy's Exposure 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
)
United States of America, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) 2:02-cr-00078-ILRL
)
) Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle
Maier, et al )
Defendant
MOTION OF MICHAEL HENRY TO INTERVENE AND
FOR IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS FILED UNDER SEAL
NOW COMES Michael Henry who presents, and moves this Honorable Court to allow him to intervene in this matter for the limited purpose of objecting to the sealing of, and obtaining access to Sealed Documents and investigator evidence
filed in this case.
Henry motions this Court to grant and allow his intervention and to grant this
motion to unseal the records of all of the clients of the Canal Street Madam, the 5000 plus
phone calls and all other sealed investigation material.
Henry has the right to determine if his Case 02-0968- Henry vs IRS,
Eastern District of Louisiana, was unlawfully influenced by the US Attorneys office
Based on knowledge of or the Threat of Prosecution against Federal Judge Kurt Damian
Engelhardt
In addition the Court should also enter an order recusing James Letten and anyone
else from his office from responding to this motion based on his donations to the
Campaigns of one of the Central Figures in various Prostitutions rings in New Orleans
and Louisiana, Senator David Vitter
Henrys First Amendment and common law rights to obtain access to
judicial proceedings and records, and to view to the fullest extent possible on what
transpires in the courtroom, are long-standing and especially critical in criminal
proceedings. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 575 (1980) (“[i]t
would be difficult to single out any aspect of government of higher concern and
importance to the people than the manner in which criminal trials are conducted”).
Those rights, and the public’s interest in their vindication, are of paramount
importance in this case. No one could question the public’s interest in receiving
information about a case alleging public corruption at the highest levels of State
and Federal government, including the possible “sale” of a United States
Federal Judges Position by a member of the House of Representatives and a United
States Senator.
The Supreme Court has recognized that those who seek to
assert the right of public access to court proceedings and judicial records “‘must
be given an opportunity to be heard.’” Globe Newspaper Co. v. Super. Ct. for
Norfolk, 457 U.S. 596, 609 n.25 (1982) (citation omitted).
A long line of Supreme Court decisions recognize a presumptive right of public
access to the criminal justice system – including specifically pretrial pleadings and
hearings, which often are as important as the trial itself. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc,
448 U.S. at 575; Press-Enter. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., 464 U.S. 501, 508-10 (1984)
(“Press-Enterprise I”); Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46 (1984); Press-Enter. Co. v.
Super. Ct. of Cal., 478 U.S. 1(1986) (“Press-Enterprise II”). See also Presley v. Georgia,
No. 09-5270, 130 S. Ct. 721 (Jan.19, 2010). Indeed, embedded in our country’s rich
history of public access to criminal trial and pretrial proceedings is the fundamental belief
that transparency is at the heart of justice.
In addition to the First Amendment right of access, the public also has a common
law right of access to court files. Nixon v. Warner Comm., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); In
reCont’l Ill. Sec. Litig., 732 F.2d 1302, 1308 (7th Cir. 1984) (noting “long-recognized”
presumption of pubic access to judicial records which “has been characterized as
fundamental to a democratic state”).
The First Amendment-based presumption of access to court proceedings,
including these sealed records, can be overcome only by a showing that closure “is
essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”
Press-Enterprise I, 464 U.S. at 510.
To justify an order denying access, a trial court must:
(1) identify an overriding interest requiring denial of access;
(2) narrowly tailor the order to protect that interest (and, in
doing so, specifically consider alternatives to denying
access); and
(3) make specific findings adequate to support the decision that
denying access is the only alternative that can serve that
interest. Id.
“Overcoming the presumption [of access] . . . is a formidable task. The court
must be ‘firmly convinced that disclosure is inappropriate before arriving at a decision
limiting access.’” Associated Press, 162 F.3d at 506 (citing Press-Enterprise I, 464 U.S.
at 510); Grove Fresh Distribs., Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir.
1994)
(“[A]ny doubts must be resolved in favor of disclosure”). The common law
presumption is equally as strong, and only can be overcome by a showing that the
party seeking access to judicial records is doing so to use those records for
“improper purposes”. Id.; see also Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.
Certainly, wholesale sealing of pleadings is entirely inappropriate. The Fifth
Circuit has reiterated, time and again, that parties are not entitled to file entire documents
Under seal without simultaneously filing either a public document with an accompanying
Sealed supplement or a sealed document with an accompanying public redacted version
of that document. United States v. Andreas, 150 F.3d 766, 768 (7th Cir. 1998); In re
Krynicki, 983 F.2d 74, 75 (7th Cir. 1992).
In short, sealing the prostitute records and phone calls in this case would be
improper. The Government, has not been able to overcome the strong
presumption of public access.
Henry asserts, on behalf of the public, that there is no valid reason to seal
any part of this case and to do so would be out of line with precedent in this
courthouse and in violation of the public’s First Amendment and common
law right of access. As “the primary representative of the public interest in the
judicial process,” the Court must carefully scrutinize any assertions by the
Government or defense regarding the need for secrecy here, as this Court has
done on prior occasions in this and other cases.
The Public, Henry and every Criminal and Civil Litigant who was either a
defendant or Plaintiff against any Branch of the Federal Government in Kurt Engelhardt
Courtroom have an interest in reviewing these records.
Further every other Federal Judge in the United
States has a compelling interest to insure that the title of
Federal Judge is not for sale.
Additional facts and evidence have now been made public since this Court
originally sealed the records in this case. David Vitter has admitted to using prostitutes
in Washington DC.
Prostitutes from New Orleans have also confirmed that Vitter was a client of
theirs and that they received payment for their services form Campaign funds. At the
time Vitter has admitted to using prostitutes, one of the Key people in his Campaign and
finance Manager was Kurt Damien Engelhardt – now an Eastern District of Louisiana
Judge, who was appointed to the bench after recommendations by David Vitter.
At the same time Vitter was recommending Engelhardt to be a Federal Judge
Phone records show Vitter using prostitutes in Washington DC. Several prostitutes
In New Orleans and Washington DC have confirmed that they provided Vitter services
and were paid for by various Vitter Campaigns.
Falsifying Federal and State Campaign Finance reports is a criminal Offense, at
the time of these alleged events Kurt Damian Engelhardt was David Vitters Campaign
Finance Manager.
At the same time as all of this is going on Vitter has been an ardent supporter
of James Letten, the US Attorney who is at this point guaranteeing that the Louisiana
Prostitution records and money trail are sealed from the public scrutiny.
From a Public perspective and view it is very simple to form an opinion, Letten
Is concealing criminal violations of State and Federal Campaign Laws and the illegal use
Of Campaign funds to pay for prostitutes for Vitter and possibly Engelhardt. No matter
what he is concealing evidence that Engelhardt made improper and unlawful payments
out of Vitters Campaign funds to pay for Prostitutes for Vitter in Washington Dc and
New Orleans.
Either way Engelhardt has a compelling interest to be biased in favor of the
Government in Rulings involving The United States of America, Lettens office or any
other Government Agency.
Based on this conduct the public has a compelling right to review all of these
Sealed records, the Government has a duty to inform the Public how all of Vitters
Prostitutes were paid for or procured.
If the Campaign funds were not used the public has the right to know if
David Vitters vote was for sale to any lobbyist who provided a night in that Sack with the
Happy Hooker.
Second the Public has the right to know the
position of Federal Judge is not for sale to people
who supply prostitutes to public officials capable of
influencing the selection process.
Kurt Engelhardt lied to the Senate and the FBI during his confirmation
investigation and hearings, and failed to disclose that Under his direction and Supervision
the Vitter Campaign filed false State election reports in order to pay in Excess of
$50,000.00 for various New Orleans and Washington DC Prostitutes.
Engelhardt participated and procured prostitutes with David Vitter’s Campaign
funds from 1997 to 2000, prior to his selection as a Federal judge and while he was acting
and running various aspects of David Vitters Election committees and as Vitters
Campaign Finance manager.
Engelhardt signed and presented Falsified documents to the State and Federal
Election Commission on behalf of David Vitters Campaign. The forms shifted money to
printing and other legitimate campaign reporting uses to conceal expenditures for
services provided by the Canal Street brothel.
Engelhardt failed to disclose these actions to the Senate Judiciary Committee
prior to his confirmation hearings as a federal Judge.
Engelhardt Transferred in excess of $50,000.00 in funds from the Campaign to
pay for high end prostitution services for Candidate David Vitter provided at the Canal
Street Brothel by employees of Jeanette Maier, the “Canal Street Madam” whose
operation was shut down by a federal investigators in 2001.